Microsoft surprises MS-DOS fans with remake of ancient text editor that works on Linux
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #2
I'm so glad that Windows is getting back a native command line editor, it's been a hole in the system since the deprecation of DOS executables on 64bit builds.
I love that it's open source too and actively cross platform. I've been using it a bit installed from winget and while it's a bit rough around the edges I'm pumped for a modern actively maintained TUI editor with both keyboard only and keyboard + mouse support.
I'm sure this will make no dent in the vim vs emacs war, but for those of us who already prefer screen editors like nano this feels a lot more modern
I love that it's open source too and actively cross platform. I've been using it a bit installed from winget and while it's a bit rough around the edges I'm pumped for a modern actively maintained TUI editor with both keyboard only and keyboard + mouse support.
I'm sure this will make no dent in the vim vs emacs war, but for those of us who already prefer screen editors like nano this feels a lot more modern
Upvote
89
(89
/
0)
Not that that's stopped legions of Marketing and UI minions desperate to make their mark from trying...
Upvote
56
(56
/
0)
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #4
This rings so true. As a teenage hackerlet, I remember those copy con test.bat because edlin had me befuddled. And having to write those QEMM386 config.sys files on paper beforehand because editing on the fly wasn't possible.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
I still lament the backsliding from CUA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access ) that 's happening with touch UIs. I can't count the numlber of times I discover a feature / hotspot years after it's been available, or I have to teach the elderlies around me how to do stuff over and over and over again because there's just no visible UI.
Upvote
79
(79
/
0)
Fantastic! I've been using Linux in various forms for almost 20 years, and as my primary operating system since 2012 or so. I was first introduced to text editing in Linux with Vim and decided I preferred nano for quick config file edits, but always wondered why the seemingly straightforward, simple interface of DOS edit was so out of reach. Happy to see this.
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
Though some aspects of CUA like cut/copy/paste using combos like Shift+Insert I'm glad got changed to the more familiar Ctrl+C/X/V. I was recently messing around with Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and was surprised to find that the shortcuts were different, 3.0 used the old CUA ones, while 3.1 used the modern ones
But overall yeah I totally agree, the lack of grab points on window frames, the lack of exposed keyboard shortcuts in dialogs or menu bars etc, it all makes learning and using time saving keyboards shortcuts such a pain, discoverability and ease of use has been lost in favor of appearances across the board in every major platforms UX
Upvote
66
(66
/
0)
Nano/pico pretty much scratches all the itches for a basic user interface for text. It's not like I need to create a functional operating system within EMACS and who the heck remembers to ESC ESC :wq! to save and exit vim. I hear though that neovim is a better vim.
Upvote
16
(22
/
-6)
I dunno what it was about the mid 90s but I maintain it was the absolute peak for text editing, the mid 90s versions of Word are among the best they've produced, WordPerfect was still a viable competing product, etc. To the point in the last line of the article, I really don't think we've done much to "get better" at typing words into a computer since then, even if the formatting of those words is arguably now much prettier.
Upvote
59
(59
/
0)
I enjoy Helix for text editing on Linux, but I've got enough customisations in it that I still use nano whenever I have to edit a file as superuser. I wonder if this would be a good alternative.
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
Hmm. I remember crashing 98-era machines just calling the con command … in HTML files.
I never really figured it what it did though, I dove into the CLI during 6.0 and my usage was fairly basic.
Just to get this back on track — seems like a nice nostalgia win
I should see if it’s available to OSX.
I never really figured it what it did though, I dove into the CLI during 6.0 and my usage was fairly basic.
Just to get this back on track — seems like a nice nostalgia win
I should see if it’s available to OSX.
Upvote
-12
(1
/
-13)
It's not a remake of dos edit. It's inspired by it but it's also borrows from visual studio code with the bottom bar. Also it handles multiple documents at once, via an odd way using the text on the far right of the blue bar on the bottom. Click on it and it gives a list of whatever is open. It will eventually be included on a win 11 installation once it's finshed
Also I think this has a lot to do with WSL also, hence why it runs on linux. Have a sane way for windows users to edit file from the linux shell.
Also I think this has a lot to do with WSL also, hence why it runs on linux. Have a sane way for windows users to edit file from the linux shell.
Upvote
48
(48
/
0)
Finally! A way to edit config files when you SSH into a Windows box! I have blog posts testing all the ancient CLI text editors to test precisely if a) runs in 64bit b) supports Unicode c) standalone executable or scriptable install. I only found two or three alternatives...
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
I quite liked the old MS-DOS editor, particularly being able to quickly switch between open files (Alt+num if memory serves). And in QBASIC mode, it could show you documentation for BASIC commands, with hyperlinks to let you navigate the documentation. If this new editor works similarly, it's quite a good option to have IMHO. I don't suppose I'll be switching from Emacs, but still, bravo.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
It would have been WONDERFUL if Microsoft had made this discovery before they fucked up Word with the "ribbon of death" (It killed my use of it, at least, and I went to OpenOffice, then LibreOffice when OpenOffice was acquired by the Dark Side).
I started using DOS-style word processing programs in the 1980s because a typewriter was loud and my writing tended to be at night. Saved me from decimating whole forests worth of paper, too.
I have to admit that the basics are all you need to put letters on a screen in a semi-coherent fashion. For "basic editing" it would work. And it's nice that they included Linux in the offering.
But I think my kind of writing differs a lot from what this UI is intended to do. It's great for those who want that experience, or have a need for it, though. Kind of a nostalgic throwback to a much earlier time in computing history that appears to be more functional and user friendly than in the past. But then, in the past, when it first came out, we were using disks that were actually floppy, too.
Comparing then to now, I'm a fan of now a lot more than I was a fan of then.
Upvote
2
(18
/
-16)
There's a keyboard shortcut to bring up the switcher too, and it's being added to the View menu. The shortcut is already there though (ctrl+p)
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
I've spent enough time learning the basics of vi/vim to see why it's still popular, and think sticking with that is probably the best path for me. That having been said, the screenshots are dredging up some nostalgia, so I may end up trying it.
Hopefully it becomes a standard component in future versions of Windows.
I really like that is has cross-platform support, as that helps people move in both directions, always a good thing.
There's a tinge of sadness though - the fact that this is less useful on Windows because Microsoft went all in on the awful idea that is the Windows Registry. What exactly is it on a standard Windows install that we can edit with this, and will have an actual effect? Not much.
(I know that the registry has some plus points, I wouldn't want to see it go entirely, but I do think that it's a poor choice for storing user & system settings. Driver details, OLE information, etc? Sure! But not user settings please. Text files are just better for configuration.)
So once this is part of Windows will there be an operating system left that doesn't have a good text editor as standard? I suppose only Emacs, but very few people seem to use that these days. Here's hoping that they can port this to Emacs and it may finally be relevant to 1990's computing...
Hopefully it becomes a standard component in future versions of Windows.
I really like that is has cross-platform support, as that helps people move in both directions, always a good thing.
There's a tinge of sadness though - the fact that this is less useful on Windows because Microsoft went all in on the awful idea that is the Windows Registry. What exactly is it on a standard Windows install that we can edit with this, and will have an actual effect? Not much.
(I know that the registry has some plus points, I wouldn't want to see it go entirely, but I do think that it's a poor choice for storing user & system settings. Driver details, OLE information, etc? Sure! But not user settings please. Text files are just better for configuration.)
So once this is part of Windows will there be an operating system left that doesn't have a good text editor as standard? I suppose only Emacs, but very few people seem to use that these days. Here's hoping that they can port this to Emacs and it may finally be relevant to 1990's computing...
Upvote
3
(13
/
-10)
Did not know that. i wonder if that was added on the more recent builds (1.2 was just a week or so ago) or I just missed it. Anyways thanks
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Has anyone gotten Doom running in it yet?
That Dos 5.0 upgrade photo gave me some serious shivers, one of my first jobs after escaping university was a slog through a LOT of "apply dos 5.0 updates to these machines" grunt work before "trust the new guy with anything important" happened
That Dos 5.0 upgrade photo gave me some serious shivers, one of my first jobs after escaping university was a slog through a LOT of "apply dos 5.0 updates to these machines" grunt work before "trust the new guy with anything important" happened
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
As a hilarious vim annecdote, this past weekend I got to try using both vim and nano on a real AT&T/Teletype(crt based, not paper) terminal dialed into a Debian Linux system over a 300 baud modem. At 300 baud nano is actually the more usable editor as vim updates an entire line on the screen every time you move the cursor or type a key adding tremendous lag to the display as the cursor slowly marches across the screen updating things that haven't changed, nano throws the cursor around much more precisely without extraneous updates making it way more responsive.I've spent enough time learning the basics of vi/vim to see why it's still popular, and think sticking with that is probably the best path for me. That having been said, the screenshots are dredging up some nostalgia, so I may end up trying it.
Hopefully it becomes a standard component in future versions of Windows.
I really like that is has cross-platform support, as that helps people move in both directions, always a good thing.
There's a tinge of sadness though - the fact that this is less useful on Windows because Microsoft went all in on the awful idea that is the Windows Registry. What exactly is it on a standard Windows install that we can edit with this, and will have an actual effect? Not much.
(I know that the registry has some plus points, I wouldn't want to see it go entirely, but I do think that it's a poor choice for storing user & system settings. Driver details, OLE information, etc? Sure! But not user settings please. Text files are just better for configuration.)
So once this is part of Windows will there be an operating system left that doesn't have a good text editor as standard? I suppose only Emacs, but very few people seem to use that these days. Here's hoping that they can port this to Emacs and it may finally be relevant to 1990's computing...
It's not the outcome I would have predicted for sure but I'm glad I thought to do the test
Upvote
62
(62
/
0)
Upvote
54
(54
/
0)
It's supposed to when it's done. Don't know what "done" is in this sense as it seems rather feature complete now.
Batch files, powershell scripts, ini files, config files, lots of options still exist. Or use it to edit something in WSL since youc an pass files between WSL and windows
Porting a text editor to a highly complex text editing environment. Seems about right for emacsSo once this is part of Windows will there be an operating system left that doesn't have a good text editor as standard? I suppose only Emacs, but very few people seem to use that these days. Here's hoping that they can port this to Emacs and it may finally be relevant to 1990's computing...
Last edited:
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
EDLIN was ok, I had learned ED on CP/M long before. But yeah, getting a screen editor was magnificent. In 1991, after using vi for 11+ years already.
What was that editor on IBM mainframe, ISPF or something?
So glad none of these were like TECO.
What was that editor on IBM mainframe, ISPF or something?
So glad none of these were like TECO.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I appreciate that it actually takes up a reasonable amount of space. 250KB sounds just right for this, but so many applications need hundreds of times more storage than one would think given their functionality and interface.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Good for Windows, I guess. But I can't imagine anyone running this on Linux for real use. vim is just too powerful.
At a previous company, a pure Windows shop, people were having problems troubleshooting a customer's issue with import files on our 'data warehouse' application. They were csv files with about 20 columns and 1MM rows. Excel was barfing on it. Nobody could even open the csv because they were trying to use Excel.
I downloaded and installed cygwin and opened up the file in vim. They were amazed. In order to get the file to work for the test, I had to substitute "COMPANY" to a unique value so it would load. :1,$ s/COMPANY/COMPANY-001/g. Done.
They thought I was a wizard. Then they needed another change. 5 minutes and another file.
Then we needed dup entries in the file. Easy peasy to copy/paste 1000 rows in vim. Then we needed a 5MM row file. cp/sed/cat and voila. From then on out, I was the large-file guy.
At a previous company, a pure Windows shop, people were having problems troubleshooting a customer's issue with import files on our 'data warehouse' application. They were csv files with about 20 columns and 1MM rows. Excel was barfing on it. Nobody could even open the csv because they were trying to use Excel.
I downloaded and installed cygwin and opened up the file in vim. They were amazed. In order to get the file to work for the test, I had to substitute "COMPANY" to a unique value so it would load. :1,$ s/COMPANY/COMPANY-001/g. Done.
They thought I was a wizard. Then they needed another change. 5 minutes and another file.
Then we needed dup entries in the file. Easy peasy to copy/paste 1000 rows in vim. Then we needed a 5MM row file. cp/sed/cat and voila. From then on out, I was the large-file guy.
Upvote
12
(18
/
-6)
Upvote
34
(34
/
0)
Edubfromktown
Ars Praetorian
On Windows and OS/2: Brief Editor (originally created by UnderWare and later purchased by Borland) was one of my top favorites, along with (highly customizable) Qedit. Still use vi on Linux and Unix.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Upvote
4
(12
/
-8)
Vim (based on the older editor vi) is not very cryptic. I first learned vi on a UNIX PDP-11/70 in 1979, the learning curve was short, sharp and it was/is a great (simple) editor. Put vim on my Windows machine a few years ago. The old, old timers and cogneseti may recall the legendary TECO (mid '60's vintage on PDP-1) - that was a red hot mess of an editor. I found that out one overnight shift when I had to use it for the only time in my life.
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
It's been a long time, but my fuzzy recollection of the dos 3.x and 4.x era was that I and most other people, I think, just used 3rd party text editors for DOS, since a usable one didn't come with DOS. There might have been something shareware or otherwise free, and for more corporate users, I'm sure there were commercial editors available. Also, there were probably ports of unix editors vi and emacs, although I did not use those at the time of DOS.
I'm frustrated my aging brain can't even remember what I used.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
oh my god EDLIN was so terrible. I remember being just about as excited when I discovered EDIT in DOS 5 as I was playing around with himem.sys.
Also, it's really nice to have a CLI text editor in Windows again! Especially with Notepad becoming . . . something, now that it's got spell check and AI stuff ("copilot rewrite my config file in a more humorous tone" said nobody ever), it's nice to, yet again, have a super-lightweight text editor.
Personally, I think EDIT is a bit nicer and cleaner than nano. Comparing either to vim isn't really fair, since vim has so much functionality (and a learning curve to match) that it's almost kind of a primitive IDE. But for quick text editing without worrying about modality, I'll take EDIT every day!
Also, it's really nice to have a CLI text editor in Windows again! Especially with Notepad becoming . . . something, now that it's got spell check and AI stuff ("copilot rewrite my config file in a more humorous tone" said nobody ever), it's nice to, yet again, have a super-lightweight text editor.
Personally, I think EDIT is a bit nicer and cleaner than nano. Comparing either to vim isn't really fair, since vim has so much functionality (and a learning curve to match) that it's almost kind of a primitive IDE. But for quick text editing without worrying about modality, I'll take EDIT every day!
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Yes, but as a teenager in the 90s, "helping Mom and Dad's friends with their computer" was like practically a full-time job, but you'd get there and see you were on a DOS 3.x system and all you had to do was just fix some minor thing in config.sys that some stupid game broke on install but oh god no it was DOS 3 and you had to use EDLIN and then maybe an asteroid would hit nearby and cause and earthquake so you could have an excuse to just go home or maybe die because that doesn't sound so bad right now either.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
agree: vim > EDIT > nano . . . > emacs¹
¹j/k I never used it much (for some reason probably relating to the fact that it's just there by default I learned vi and never thought about it again) so I literally have no opinion on the matter, but hey if we're reminiscing about the 90s, a good old emacs/vi flamewar seems appropriate, no?
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)